Quiz Show

Okay, people, here’s your chance to score some free swag, or just get a jump on your holiday shopping. As mentioned yesterday, our friends at Distant Replays have generously donated a $200 gift card, which they’ve asked me to raffle off.

So here’s the deal: I’ve whipped up a list of uni-related questions — some pretty easy, some not so easy. The subject matter leans heavily toward baseball and football, but hey, those are my strong suits — deal. The 10 people with the most correct answers, plus one wild card entry selected at random from all the other participants, will be have their names put into a Green Bay Packers reproduction helmet (courtesy of the good folks at Helmet Hut), and then we’ll draw the winner. And maybe we’ll post the most amusing incorrect answers at a later date.

To enter the raffle, copy and paste the questions into an e-mail message, add your answers, and send it to uniquiz at earthlink dot net (please note that this is not the usual Uni Watch address). Entries will be accepted until 11pm, eastern time, on next Monday, December 4th. I’ll announce the 11 finalists later that week, and we’ll draw the winning name a few days after that. Only one entry per person, and please don’t try using different e-mail addresses to submit multiple entries — cheating on a blog contest is beyond pathetic, and we’ll probably catch you doing it anyway. Once your entry is submitted, you can’t take it back and change it, so don’t even ask.

Okay, enough preliminaries — here we go:

1) Who was the last MLB player not to wear an earflap while batting?

2) In Jim Bouton’s seminal 1970 book, Ball Four, he refers to a player who would “smooth his uniform carefully, adjust his cap, tighten his belt, and say, ‘I can add 20 points to my average if I know I look ______ out there.’ ” Who was the player, and what’s the missing word in that sentence?

3) The NHL required all teams to wear player names on the backs of jerseys in 1977. But Maple Leafs owner Harold Ballward, who was opposed to the new rule, found a creative way to get around it. What did he do?

4) Only two NFL players have worn the controversial ProCap anti-concussion attachment during regular-season games. Who were they?

5) Name the last NHL player not to wear a helmet and the last NHL goalie not to wear a mask.

6) Only two current MLB team captains wear a “C” on their jerseys. Who are they, and what was the last NFL team whose captains wore “C” designations?

7) Who was the last MLB catcher to wear a conventional mask with a backwards cap (i.e., no helmet, no goalie-style mask)?

8) Durene was the go-to fabric for football, basketball, and hockey jerseys in the ’40s, ’50s and ’60s. What two fibers make up durene?

9) Back in the 1920s, Notre Dame’s dominating backfield became known as the Four Horsemen. One of these four players later played a key role in the development of NFL uniforms. Which one of the Four Horsemen was it, and what was his impact on NFL uniform history?

10) Eyeglasses have been fairly common over the years in MLB and the NBA, but not in the worlds of hockey or football. Name at least three NFL and/or NHL players (including at least one from each of the two leagues) who’ve worn glasses — not goggles, mind you, but glasses.

11) The Milwaukee Brewers came into existence in 1970 wearing blue and gold. This is because:

a) Blue for Lake Michigan, gold for lager beer.

b) Blue for Pabst Blue Ribbon and gold for Miller High Life, which were the city’s preeminent breweries at the time.

c) Blue and gold were the colors of the old minor league Milwaukee Brewers, who played from 1902 through 1952.

d) The franchise had previously been the Seattle Pilots, whose colors were also blue and gold, and the team’s new Milwaukee owners recycled the old Seattle uniforms because they were too cheap to spring for new ones.

e) The franchise had previously been the Seattle Pilots, whose colors were also blue and gold, and there wasn’t time to order new uniforms because it wasn’t clear whether the team would be playing in Seattle or Milwaukee until after the end of spring training.

f) The franchise had previously been the Seattle Pilots, whose colors were also blue and gold, and Topps asked the team not to change its colors because it would cause problems with that season’s edition of baseball cards.

g) Trick question — none of the above.

12) True or False: It is against the rules for an NFL player’s hair to obscure his nameplate, but this regulation is never enforced.

13) The little hand-warmer muff worn by many NFL quarterbacks is sometimes referred to by a slang term. What is this term, and what is its derivation?

14) Who is the only major-level athlete to have worn his birthday on his jersey?

15) One of the following facemask designs was worn only in practice, not in an actual NFL game. Which one?

16) In the 1940s, NFL officials’ stripes were color-coded by position — black and white for the referee, red and white for the head linesman, orange and white for the umpire, green and white for the field judge, and so on. This statement is:

d) A trick question — the NFL used two-man officiating crews until the 1950s.

17) When the Expos switched from wool uniforms to polyester double-knits in the 1970s, Mike Jorgensen suffered an allergic reaction to the new polyester fabric, and a special non-poly uniform had to be made for him. This statement is:

a) True

b) False

c) A trick question — Jorgensen actually had an allergy to wool and had to wear a polyester uniform while the rest of the team wore woolens.

d) A trick question — the player in question was actually Ken Singleton.

e) A double-trick question — the player in question was actually Ken Singleton, and he was allergic to wool, not poly.

a) You can’t market players as personalities if you can’t even see their faces.

b) If a player is knocked out cold, the medical staff needs to see his eyes without having to remove the helmet from his head.

c) The league is concerned that dark visors look gang-related.

d) Trick question — anyone can wear a dark-tinted visor, but most players prefer a clear visor, because it doesn’t cut down on their vision.

19) Ricky Williams wore No. 34 for most of his senior year at Texas. But for one game he wore No. 37. Why?

20) The last time MLB managers wore street clothes was in 1950. One of the two skippers wearing civvies that season was, of course, Connie Mack. Who was the other one?

21) Juan Pierre is the only current MLB player to wear his cap under his batting helmet. Who was the last player to do so before Pierre?

22) Which one of the following MLB players did not wear a facemask attached to his batting helmet at any point in his big league career?

a) Charlie Hayes

b) Ellis Valentine

c) Warren Cromartie

d) Dave Parker

e) Kevin Seitzer

f) Gary Roenicke

g) Trick question — they all wore facemasks.

23) One of the Original Six NHL teams has never used a lace-up jersey collar. Which one?

24) Every volleyball team has two players whose uniforms are different from their teammates’. Who are these two players, and what is distinctive about their uniforms?

25) The NBA is the only major-level sports league whose uniforms don’t carry a sportswear manufacturer’s logo. This is because:

a) The sportswear companies have never been willing to meet the NBA’s asking price for uni-borne logo placement.

b) The league and the players’ union have been unable to agree on how to split the licensing revenue, so the union has blocked a deal between the league and the sportswear companies.

c) The NBA’s TV partners have insisted on a cut from the licensing revenue, and the league has balked at that demand.

d) NBA commissioner David Stern strongly believes in the integrity of the league’s team brands, and doesn’t want to clutter up the uniforms with non-NBA logos.

————————–

That’s it — get crackin’. I’m gonna be on the road most of today, so don’t bother peppering me with questions like “Is this an open-book test?” or “Can you use the word in a sentence?” — it’s all pretty self-explanatory.

Back tomorrow with our regularly scheduled blog (including an update on an NFL matter that several readers have been asking about).

[quote comment=”25666″]If the Randy Wolf/Juan Pierre signings press conference is any indication, it appears that the Dodgers will be adding playersÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ names to the jerseys.

I remember reading something early last year about how the Dodgers took the names off in an effort to stress team over individual, and then concluded it was a mistake.

Also, the Cubs will be returning the players’ names to their home jerseys this coming season.[/quote]

I still theorize that Frank McCourt removed the player nameplates because he’s secretly pretending he owns the Red Sox, not the Dodgers. As a lifelong Dodgers fan, I’m glad to see the nameplates back. LA has a very traditional uniform, and the names are part of that tradition.

Okay, now back to work, I mean, researching quiz answers.

blakeruns|
November 30, 2006 at 9:57 am |

well shoots that is quite the rigorous quiz i must say.

maybe if i have some free time later i can give that an honest attempt, and maybe answer 3 of those hahaah

im a relatively new UniWatch ™ reader, and have not seen this addressed in any of the archives or on the FAQ so i have to ask…
what friggin colour are the Cowboy’s pants. Are the silver, do they have some blue in them? Have they always been this way? They look like theyre made of dolphin skin.

deb|
November 30, 2006 at 9:58 am |

Holy crap. I’m screwed. :( Good luck, all!

nybatt|
November 30, 2006 at 10:00 am |

speaking on the dodgers new jerseys… don’t know if it was posted in the comments yesterday… but the dodger road and home jerseys have changed in other ways as well… gone is the white outline on the numbers and the interlocking “LA” on the sleeve.. they are simple blue stitched numbers and letters… the home whites have also lost all outlining…

very plain… very nice… except for the names of course… could’ve done without those….

now if only the yanks would drop the white trim on their road greys……….

austin|
November 30, 2006 at 10:01 am |

[quote comment=”25664″]Well, any chance of me doing any ‘real’ work today just went out the window.[/quote]
This is harder than work ™

I’m already getting LOTS of complaints about how hard the quiz is. Now, most of the answers are eminently answerable if you know where to look, but I don’t want to discourage people from entering. So here’s what we’ll do: In addition to the 10 people with the most correct answers, we’ll also choose one wild card finalist from among all the other entries. So there will be 11 finalists, not 10. I’ll add this stipulation to the rules in the main text right now.

The basic point: Enter! Everyone has a shot.

AMS|
November 30, 2006 at 10:08 am |

Well, the Maple Leafs question was the only one I knew right away. Good questions, Paul.

WVU Tom|
November 30, 2006 at 10:11 am |

[quote comment=”25670″]well shoots that is quite

im a relatively new UniWatch ™ reader, and have not seen this addressed in any of the archives or on the FAQ so i have to ask…
what friggin colour are the Cowboy’s pants. Are the silver, do they have some blue in them? Have they always been this way? They look like theyre made of dolphin skin.[/quote]

Paul has mentioned this in the past, and I’m answering strictly on memory here, so anyone feel free to correct me if I’m wrong…

While the cowboys helmets are indeed silver, the pants are actually a metallic blue color–which I don’t think makes any sense, blue may be an offical team color, but I think the pants should match the helmet. I don’t know if the pants have always been this color, but they have been for at least quite a while now.

dilbert719|
November 30, 2006 at 10:12 am |

[quote comment=”25670″]im a relatively new UniWatch ™ reader, and have not seen this addressed in any of the archives or on the FAQ so i have to ask…
what friggin colour are the Cowboy’s pants. Are the silver, do they have some blue in them? Have they always been this way? They look like theyre made of dolphin skin.[/quote]

There’s actually a Uni Watch article on Page 2 that covers this, if memory serves, but I don’t have ESPN Insider, so I can’t go check.

Anyways, there are actually two pairs of pants for Cowboys uniforms, one that is more silver, with brighter blue stripes, which they pair with their dark jerseys, and one that is darker and a little bit bluer/greener, with darker blue stripes, that goes with the home whites. There’s a good artist’s rendering of it below.

[quote comment=”25680″][quote comment=”25670″]im a relatively new UniWatch ™ reader, and have not seen this addressed in any of the archives or on the FAQ so i have to ask…
what friggin colour are the Cowboy’s pants. Are the silver, do they have some blue in them? Have they always been this way? They look like theyre made of dolphin skin.[/quote]

There’s actually a Uni Watch article on Page 2 that covers this, if memory serves, but I don’t have ESPN Insider, so I can’t go check.

Anyways, there are actually two pairs of pants for Cowboys uniforms, one that is more silver, with brighter blue stripes, which they pair with their dark jerseys, and one that is darker and a little bit bluer/greener, with darker blue stripes, that goes with the home whites. There’s a good artist’s rendering of it below.

Aaaand I fouled it up, despite having the image open, by typing faster than my brain worked. The darker blue stripes are on the silver pants, and the brighter blue stripes on the silver/blue/green ones. Other than that, I believe what I said above holds.

Daniel|
November 30, 2006 at 10:18 am |

[quote comment=”25680″][quote comment=”25670″]im a relatively new UniWatch ™ reader, and have not seen this addressed in any of the archives or on the FAQ so i have to ask…
what friggin colour are the Cowboy’s pants. Are the silver, do they have some blue in them? Have they always been this way? They look like theyre made of dolphin skin.[/quote]

There’s actually a Uni Watch article on Page 2 that covers this, if memory serves, but I don’t have ESPN Insider, so I can’t go check.

Anyways, there are actually two pairs of pants for Cowboys uniforms, one that is more silver, with brighter blue stripes, which they pair with their dark jerseys, and one that is darker and a little bit bluer/greener, with darker blue stripes, that goes with the home whites. There’s a good artist’s rendering of it below.

Cowboys uniforms[/quote]
I never realized that the home and road unis are so different, especially the shoulders (striped at home, the Cowboys star on the road). Anyone know why that is?

WVU Tom|
November 30, 2006 at 10:18 am |

Off the top of my head during the first run though of the questions,

I’m pretty sure I only know 2.5 answers! (although I think I may be right about 2 or 3 more guesses). Good quiz indeed!

Brian|
November 30, 2006 at 10:21 am |

[quote comment=”25668″]I never thought there was any controversy or doubt about it… LA and the Cubs are going back to names on the back.

Boston, NY Yankees, and the Giants are the only (I think?) remaining ones without any names.[/quote]

The Red Sox do not have names on the home jerseys, the away jerseys DO have names on the back.

Kim|
November 30, 2006 at 10:28 am |

[quote comment=”25666″]If the Randy Wolf/Juan Pierre signings press conference is any indication, it appears that the Dodgers will be adding playersÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ names to the jerseys.

I remember reading something early last year about how the Dodgers took the names off in an effort to stress team over individual, and then concluded it was a mistake.

Also, the Cubs will be returning the players’ names to their home jerseys this coming season.[/quote]

I think the real reason is they couldn’t figure out how to spell Garciaparra, or they didn’t feel like going through that kind of effort for a one year guy.

OK that’s sarcasm.

MetsFan AZ|
November 30, 2006 at 10:32 am |

Someone at Fox sports heard us. 4 flippin’ days after the fact they have photos to go with their 10 worst list. Hacks…

Bettman says the players who have tested the new unis have been “thrilled.” Forgive me if I am skeptical about an official’s summation of player response to major changes — I have the new NBA ball in mind when I read things like that. Maybe they actually do like the new unis, but I’ll take it with a grain of salt until the players start coming out and saying yeah, these things are great.

I was watching college hoops last night and I couldn’t believe my eyes. A few weeks ago someone posted the new Kansas State jerseys and I didn’t know what to expect. But seeing the players wear them was almost worse than watching KSU get blown out by 30 points. I don’t remember his name but #1 for KSU was wearing a shirt under his jersey (don’t have time to post a pic…late to class) but it looked awful!!!

Also sunday night I was flipping through the channels and stopped on Fox for the news. They were talking about BYU playing Oregon in one of the bowl games. The sportscaster mentioned Oregon’s 48 uniform options and the anchorwoman said “now that is a team I would love to play for”. Obviously she hasn’t seen their 48 options…yuck!

BtotheE|
November 30, 2006 at 11:17 am |

Great quiz, It seems like there could be somecontroversial answers in it. But It is going to be a reserch test, and I am gonna hope for that wild card, but I will give it my best.

[quote comment=”25674″]I’m already getting LOTS of complaints about how hard the quiz is. Now, most of the answers are eminently answerable if you know where to look, but I don’t want to discourage people from entering. So here’s what we’ll do: In addition to the 10 people with the most correct answers, we’ll also choose one wild card finalist from among all the other entries. So there will be 11 finalists, not 10. I’ll add this stipulation to the rules in the main text right now.

The basic point: Enter! Everyone has a shot.[/quote]

Nonsense . . .Hard, yes. Challenging, sure. Impossible, nonsense. I got 6 or 7 complete or partial answers right off the top of my head and another 6 or 7 with only minimal research (good thing I don’t have any REAL work to do . . .)

[quote comment=”25710″][quote comment=”25668″]I never thought there was any controversy or doubt about it… LA and the Cubs are going back to names on the back.

Boston, NY Yankees, and the Giants are the only (I think?) remaining ones without any names.[/quote]

I wish all teams would put the names on their backs. It’s easier to id the players, it adds another feature to the jersey, and they look weird without a name.[/quote]

I hate names on jerseys. I guess I can live with it on away jerseys, but never when the team is at home. Team sports should be about the team, not the individual. If a fan cares enough about the team to know who the players are, names are not necessary. I have never watched a Cubs game and not known who was who.

Pinstriped uniforms especially should not have names on the back. It looks stupid.

Gotta love Bobby Knight, he gets it (TM)

Terry Mark|
November 30, 2006 at 12:07 pm |

[quote comment=”25664″]Well, any chance of me doing any ‘real’ work today just went out the window.[/quote]

Jill,

Surely as a Purdue graduate you could whip up a computer program or build a robot to do all your real work while you concentrate on the quiz.

Andy|
November 30, 2006 at 12:17 pm |

Paul,

Harold, not Howard, Ballard owned the Leafs. Tisk-tisk.

nico|
November 30, 2006 at 12:19 pm |

[quote comment=”25690″]Someone at Fox sports heard us. 4 flippin’ days after the fact they have photos to go with their 10 worst list. Hacks…[/quote]

Who ever did this piece is so wrong! Bashing Newcastle U who has one of the best unis out there in soccer, hating the orange Dolphins jersey… He probably would like every team in all navy or black, so they would look intimidating. Come on, how ’bout some diversity. I love orange, and I think it goes well with green. Plus the striped soccer shirts date back to the mid 1800, they are a classic, no ref was wearing striped shirts then. Sorry, but it had to be said.

ACC (the Brain)|
November 30, 2006 at 12:20 pm |

[quote comment=”25713″][quote comment=”25710″][quote comment=”25668″]I never thought there was any controversy or doubt about it… LA and the Cubs are going back to names on the back.

Boston, NY Yankees, and the Giants are the only (I think?) remaining ones without any names.[/quote]

I wish all teams would put the names on their backs. It’s easier to id the players, it adds another feature to the jersey, and they look weird without a name.[/quote]

I hate names on jerseys. I guess I can live with it on away jerseys, but never when the team is at home. Team sports should be about the team, not the individual. If a fan cares enough about the team to know who the players are, names are not necessary. I have never watched a Cubs game and not known who was who.

Pinstriped uniforms especially should not have names on the back. It looks stupid.

Gotta love Bobby Knight, he gets it (TM)[/quote]

I definitely don’t gotta love Bob Knight for anything …I guess you don’t have to have names at home if you want to keep with tradition and the team concept. As a hardcore fan I can be expected to know every single player on my team – but to know and recognize every single player in the league based on number or appearance- who can do that?

As for college – if I’m a parent and my kid makes the team through hard work I would want to see the name on his/her back. A player deserves that honor instead of being forced to be anonymous.

As for pinstriped unis I agree – I’ll go as far as to say in general they look stupid in my opinion.

in my opinion, no, bobby knight doesnt get it…
what is ironic about the whole thing is that when it comes to career ncaa hoop wins, dean smith will have passed a prick (adolph rupp), and will have been passed by a prick (bobby knight).

the only good things i have to say about him is that his programs are clean, and his players graduate. you can have the rest…

in my opinion, no, bobby knight doesnt get it…
what is ironic about the whole thing is that when it comes to career ncaa hoop wins, dean smith will have passed a prick (adolph rupp), and will have been passed by a prick (bobby knight).

the only good things i have to say about him is that his programs are clean, and his players graduate. you can have the rest…[/quote]

No you do have to love Bobby Knight. If not for him who teaches these kids the fundlements of life. Without Bobby Knight Ron Artest rules the world. HaHa.
But really Knight is a great coach, and I see nothing wrong with they way he coaches. I would be truely honored if my boys would ever be coached by this man.

John in KY|
November 30, 2006 at 12:56 pm |

[quote comment=”25684″]
I never realized that the home and road unis are so different, especially the shoulders (striped at home, the Cowboys star on the road). Anyone know why that is?[/quote]

Back when the Cowboys first changed from the plain royal blue and white uniforms in 1964 they only had one pair of pants (the silver-blue color or, as we called it in those less PC times “gun metal blue”), the helmets matched the pants, and the blue jerseys were the reverse of the white jersey – dark royal blue with white numbers and white stripes with thin black borders. With the new uniforms the owner decided the team would wear white at home, so the blue jerseys were rarely worn.

However, they were worn in some big games that the team lost, starting with Super Bowl V. By the end of the 1970s, they seemed to lose every big game they wore them in, including the NFC Championship game after the 1979 season. The players and fans though the blue jerseys were bad luck, so in 1981 they replaced the old dark royal jerseys with a navy blue/silver set: navy blue jersey with 2 silver stripes that had white borders and silver numbers with white borders, and matching pure silver pants with navy/white stripes. The 1981 numbers were hard to read,so they were switched in 1982 to silver numbers with a double border in blue and white. The helmet was also changed to a more silvery silver/blue shade in-between the original silver/blue and pure silver, and the helmet strips/decals were darkened to the current shade.

In 1994 they tried to introduce a modernized “double star” jersey in both white and blue, to be worn with the silver pants. These were supposed to be the teams new uniform, but they were winning in the “classic” white uniforms so these became alternate jerseys for a couple of years.

I believe the current navy jerseys started in 1996. However, the blue version of the “modern double star” was worn as alternates on Thanksgiving a couple of times in the late 1990s until the current navy/white “retro” uniforms came out.

The pants worn with the white jerseys have been altered over the years to the current silver/greenish-blue shade.

ACC (the Brain)|
November 30, 2006 at 1:02 pm |

[quote comment=”25728″][quote comment=”25684″]
I never realized that the home and road unis are so different, especially the shoulders (striped at home, the Cowboys star on the road). Anyone know why that is?[/quote]

Back when the Cowboys first changed from the plain royal blue and white uniforms in 1964 they only had one pair of pants (the silver-blue color or, as we called it in those less PC times “gun metal blue”), the helmets matched the pants, and the blue jerseys were the reverse of the white jersey – dark royal blue with white numbers and white stripes with thin black borders. With the new uniforms the owner decided the team would wear white at home, so the blue jerseys were rarely worn.

However, they were worn in some big games that the team lost, starting with Super Bowl V. By the end of the 1970s, they seemed to lose every big game they wore them in, including the NFC Championship game after the 1979 season. The players and fans though the blue jerseys were bad luck, so in 1981 they replaced the old dark royal jerseys with a navy blue/silver set: navy blue jersey with 2 silver stripes that had white borders and silver numbers with white borders, and matching pure silver pants with navy/white stripes. The 1981 numbers were hard to read,so they were switched in 1982 to silver numbers with a double border in blue and white. The helmet was also changed to a more silvery silver/blue shade in-between the original silver/blue and pure silver, and the helmet strips/decals were darkened to the current shade.

In 1994 they tried to introduce a modernized “double star” jersey in both white and blue, to be worn with the silver pants. These were supposed to be the teams new uniform, but they were winning in the “classic” white uniforms so these became alternate jerseys for a couple of years.

I believe the current navy jerseys started in 1996. However, the blue version of the “modern double star” was worn as alternates on Thanksgiving a couple of times in the late 1990s until the current navy/white “retro” uniforms came out.

The pants worn with the white jerseys have been altered over the years to the current silver/greenish-blue shade.[/quote]

You deserve an authentic Cowboys helmet for that masterpiece of a post.

I am frustrated to read about how superstition is the reason behind so many subtle changes to unis.

Ryan from Ohio State|
November 30, 2006 at 1:13 pm |

[quote comment=”25692″]So the new design of hockey jerseys we all knew were official are now, uh, official.

Hmm…ought to be interesting how this plays out. I know hockey is a distant fourth sport in AmericaÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s sports hierarchy and I hope this doesnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t alienate the older fans (who have been pretty loyal through these past couple of troubling years) who are familiar and like the old jerseys (Detroit IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢m looking at you).

I could see this going one of two ways really, the first way being is if the new material and design really does help make it easier to move in, then hopefully it leads to more scoring. This then leads to more Ã¢â‚¬Å“excitingÃ¢â‚¬Â games (I was a goalie in high school and us beating a team 1 Ã¢â‚¬“ 0 was exciting for me, but IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢m rambling) which then leads to more fan interest which leads to getting back on tv (and by tv I mean ESPN) which makes the league better.

On the other hand they could introduce these new jerseys and the game not change at all which would lead fans to complaining about how the league is just changing jerseys to try to make more profit off of the fans buying them and the league spins further into oblivion.

Clearly itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s too early to tell how this going to play out but the key thing is that these jerseys must result in an improved product on the ice. Personally I like the jerseys that my team has now so IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢m worried what they are going to change to but if it helps the league in general then its worth it.

Matt B|
November 30, 2006 at 1:16 pm |

Looks like Jenna Bush has taken a sponsor. If you’re scoring at home, that’s a Boca Juniors jersey she’s rocking. Does “the People’s Team” know Goodyear workers are on strike?

in my opinion, no, bobby knight doesnt get it…
what is ironic about the whole thing is that when it comes to career ncaa hoop wins, dean smith will have passed a prick (adolph rupp), and will have been passed by a prick (bobby knight).

the only good things i have to say about him is that his programs are clean, and his players graduate. you can have the rest…[/quote]

No you do have to love Bobby Knight. If not for him who teaches these kids the fundlements of life. Without Bobby Knight Ron Artest rules the world. HaHa.
But really Knight is a great coach, and I see nothing wrong with they way he coaches. I would be truely honored if my boys would ever be coached by this man.[/quote]

bobby knight is like school in the summer…
NO CLASS.

behaving the way he does with his players, officials, and the media shows me that getting texas tech to the ncaa tournament is the least of his problems.

an honor would be dean smith or john wooden.

Dane|
November 30, 2006 at 1:31 pm |

Awww, man, I hate open book tests. Makes me feel like I’m back in college, pulling an all-nighter. Can someone get me a big mug of Jolt & Vivarin?

Brian|
November 30, 2006 at 1:41 pm |

On the topic of names/no names on the back of jerseys, one team comes to mind: USC. Even though I follow college football pretty consistently, I find it tough to watch a USC game and always trying to attach a name to a number, it kinda takes away from enjoying the game. Living in an east coast city the Trojans aren’t all familiar to me and name plates would help. It is much easier for even a casual fan to identify baseball players without the aid of nameplates but in football the task gets much more difficult, in my opinion anyways.

[quote comment=”25735″]On the topic of names/no names on the back of jerseys, one team comes to mind: USC. Even though I follow college football pretty consistently, I find it tough to watch a USC game and always trying to attach a name to a number, it kinda takes away from enjoying the game. Living in an east coast city the Trojans aren’t all familiar to me and name plates would help. It is much easier for even a casual fan to identify baseball players without the aid of nameplates but in football the task gets much more difficult, in my opinion anyways.[/quote]

I couldn’t agree more! Especially in College Football with 116-member teams and multiple players wearing the same number (recognizing, of course that the two same-numbered players can never be on the field at the same time, but still!)

euce|
November 30, 2006 at 1:45 pm |

Golden State’s “The City” uniforms definitely don’t belong on that list. They are some of the best uniforms out there. I don’t think a jersey design necessarily has to be threatening to be effective. I mean look at the Warriors’ uniforms now – they try to be threatening and are more boring than anything else.

[quote comment=”25730″]
…on the slim-fit NHL jerseys…
On the other hand they could introduce these new jerseys and the game not change at all which would lead fans to complaining about how the league is just changing jerseys to try to make more profit off of the fans buying them and the league spins further into oblivion…
[/quote]

Well, I guess I’m sort of glad, since the Caps have been looking for an excuse to go back to red, white and blue. While going back to our old logo is probably too much to ask for, anything to get rid of the marketing inspired colors is good.

JohnnyBoy|
November 30, 2006 at 1:51 pm |

I had an instructor in college who would give partial credit for unusual/amusing answers. “any answer is better than no answer.” So I’m making up sarcastic BS for Paul to read.

ACC (the Brain)|
November 30, 2006 at 1:58 pm |

[quote comment=”25738″]Golden State’s “The City” uniforms definitely don’t belong on that list. They are some of the best uniforms out there. I don’t think a jersey design necessarily has to be threatening to be effective. I mean look at the Warriors’ uniforms now – they try to be threatening and are more boring than anything else.[/quote]

I think the current Warriors unis are fine – where do you get boring? Is it because they are not a winning team lately so they must be boring?

If the threatening aspect is the lightning bolts – consider me threatened.

I wouldn’t change them a bit.

Broker75|
November 30, 2006 at 1:59 pm |

# 2 for the Cincinnati Reds best uni’s. I thought I knew everything about sports.., till I read the questions on that quiz. sheesh! If I wasn’t at work at right now, I’d give’er a try.

Chad G|
November 30, 2006 at 2:01 pm |

[quote comment=”25735″]On the topic of names/no names on the back of jerseys, one team comes to mind: USC. Even though I follow college football pretty consistently, I find it tough to watch a USC game and always trying to attach a name to a number, it kinda takes away from enjoying the game. Living in an east coast city the Trojans aren’t all familiar to me and name plates would help. It is much easier for even a casual fan to identify baseball players without the aid of nameplates but in football the task gets much more difficult, in my opinion anyways.[/quote]

I currently live in LA, but was watching the USC-ND game from New York (Thats where I’m from originally). USC starting tailback is 23 (chauncey Washington). However they have another 23 (something Joseph) that returns kickoffs. It gets very confusing. Bob Davie the announcer even called the Joseph guy washington once. Musberger knew the difference though. I kinda like the teams with the tradition of having no name on the jersey to keep it that way, however the practice of giving the same number to 2 different players should be stopped. Thats the real problem.

[quote comment=”25745″][quote comment=”25735″]On the topic of names/no names on the back of jerseys, one team comes to mind: USC. Even though I follow college football pretty consistently, I find it tough to watch a USC game and always trying to attach a name to a number, it kinda takes away from enjoying the game. Living in an east coast city the Trojans aren’t all familiar to me and name plates would help. It is much easier for even a casual fan to identify baseball players without the aid of nameplates but in football the task gets much more difficult, in my opinion anyways.[/quote]

I currently live in LA, but was watching the USC-ND game from New York (Thats where I’m from originally). USC starting tailback is 23 (chauncey Washington). However they have another 23 (something Joseph) that returns kickoffs. It gets very confusing. Bob Davie the announcer even called the Joseph guy washington once. Musberger knew the difference though. I kinda like the teams with the tradition of having no name on the jersey to keep it that way, however the practice of giving the same number to 2 different players should be stopped. Thats the real problem.[/quote]

I’d be interested to see a team with a traditional uniform like USC or Navy add names to the back but not change anything else. Would fans get used to this? Would someone actually complain? I mean from the front you can’t even tell if there are names on the back.

Jill|
November 30, 2006 at 2:10 pm |

[quote comment=”25714″][quote comment=”25664″]Well, any chance of me doing any ‘real’ work today just went out the window.[/quote]

Jill,

Surely as a Purdue graduate you could whip up a computer program or build a robot to do all your real work while you concentrate on the quiz.[/quote]

I was going to say something about stereotypes and there is more to Purdue than engineering. But that would be tacky seeing as I am an engineer. At least we are one of the only teams that look good in black It could be much worse. Or where I went to grad school which not only reminds me of another hated logo but makes no sense (unless there are wolves swimming out in the Long Island Sound).

Matthew S.|
November 30, 2006 at 2:12 pm |

That quiz was rough. I think I got 5 or 6 right and maybe one or two of my guesses will turn out to be correct (thank god for multiple choice: the processes of elimination got me through so many tests in High School and College…)

Paul said he would consider posting some of the more amusing wrong answers sometime in the future, so with that in mind, if I had no clue, I just tried to be a smartass (which comes pretty naturally to me anyway).

Great quiz though. Definitely got no work done this morning. Paul, my boss thanks you for contributing to office inefficiency.

Chad G|
November 30, 2006 at 2:14 pm |

This isn’t Uni realated but since you all are my people, I feel like sharing it with you.

I used to like Albert Pujols, but after he said Glavine sucked after he pitched a gem and now this whining like a little b*tch I really feel like routing against him.

Chad G|
November 30, 2006 at 2:19 pm |

[quote comment=”25748″][quote comment=”25745″][quote comment=”25735″]On the topic of names/no names on the back of jerseys, one team comes to mind: USC. Even though I follow college football pretty consistently, I find it tough to watch a USC game and always trying to attach a name to a number, it kinda takes away from enjoying the game. Living in an east coast city the Trojans aren’t all familiar to me and name plates would help. It is much easier for even a casual fan to identify baseball players without the aid of nameplates but in football the task gets much more difficult, in my opinion anyways.[/quote]

I currently live in LA, but was watching the USC-ND game from New York (Thats where I’m from originally). USC starting tailback is 23 (chauncey Washington). However they have another 23 (something Joseph) that returns kickoffs. It gets very confusing. Bob Davie the announcer even called the Joseph guy washington once. Musberger knew the difference though. I kinda like the teams with the tradition of having no name on the jersey to keep it that way, however the practice of giving the same number to 2 different players should be stopped. Thats the real problem.[/quote]

I’d be interested to see a team with a traditional uniform like USC or Navy add names to the back but not change anything else. Would fans get used to this? Would someone actually complain? I mean from the front you can’t even tell if there are names on the back.[/quote]

I think it depends on the school. You probably would have to ask alumni from each University. I don’t know why Oklahoma took the names off this year, I don’t believe they have a nameless tradition. USC I don’t know if they have ever had names on the back, I’ve only been in LA for a year so I’m not that familiar with them. Penn State and Notre Dame though. Never gonna happen, the nameless thing is part of their Identity.

euce|
November 30, 2006 at 2:20 pm |

[quote comment=”25743″][quote comment=”25738″]Golden State’s “The City” uniforms definitely don’t belong on that list. They are some of the best uniforms out there. I don’t think a jersey design necessarily has to be threatening to be effective. I mean look at the Warriors’ uniforms now – they try to be threatening and are more boring than anything else.[/quote]

I think the current Warriors unis are fine – where do you get boring? Is it because they are not a winning team lately so they must be boring?

If the threatening aspect is the lightning bolts – consider me threatened.

I wouldn’t change them a bit.[/quote]

I think the logo tries to be threatening with the ‘Warrior’ silhouette which looks like something you would see on a kid’s trapper keeper.

They are a little plain compared to those “The City” ones. Name on the front big stupid stripes running down the sides – they pretty much fit the Reebok template that many teams have adopted.

Plus there’s that oddly placed yellow stripe running along the back of the shorts.

Brian|
November 30, 2006 at 2:34 pm |

[quote comment=”25752″][quote comment=”25748″][quote comment=”25745″][quote comment=”25735″]On the topic of names/no names on the back of jerseys, one team comes to mind: USC. Even though I follow college football pretty consistently, I find it tough to watch a USC game and always trying to attach a name to a number, it kinda takes away from enjoying the game. Living in an east coast city the Trojans aren’t all familiar to me and name plates would help. It is much easier for even a casual fan to identify baseball players without the aid of nameplates but in football the task gets much more difficult, in my opinion anyways.[/quote]

I currently live in LA, but was watching the USC-ND game from New York (Thats where I’m from originally). USC starting tailback is 23 (chauncey Washington). However they have another 23 (something Joseph) that returns kickoffs. It gets very confusing. Bob Davie the announcer even called the Joseph guy washington once. Musberger knew the difference though. I kinda like the teams with the tradition of having no name on the jersey to keep it that way, however the practice of giving the same number to 2 different players should be stopped. Thats the real problem.[/quote]

I’d be interested to see a team with a traditional uniform like USC or Navy add names to the back but not change anything else. Would fans get used to this? Would someone actually complain? I mean from the front you can’t even tell if there are names on the back.[/quote]

I think it depends on the school. You probably would have to ask alumni from each University. I don’t know why Oklahoma took the names off this year, I don’t believe they have a nameless tradition. USC I don’t know if they have ever had names on the back, I’ve only been in LA for a year so I’m not that familiar with them. Penn State and Notre Dame though. Never gonna happen, the nameless thing is part of their Identity.[/quote]

I don’t think that by adding names to classic uniforms like USC and Navy it would make them look trashy or modern by any means. There are plenty of teams that have nameplates and still retain a classic look (ie. much of the NFL). Teams using the same number twice, however, does present a problem. I would still rather see two USC players wearing number 23 rather than have teams try to find a way to differentiate between the two. Imagine Musberger’s call “Number 23a Chauncy Washington brings the ball across the 50…”

I would vote for #5 or #8–aren’t they pretty much identical? They show you the front of one and the back of the other, but if I remember, they’re both the same design. Part of me misses the ’70s and ’80s pullover jerseys, but I definitely would NOT want them to come back … yet, anyway.

I would vote for #5 or #8–aren’t they pretty much identical? They show you the front of one and the back of the other, but if I remember, they’re both the same design. Part of me misses the ’70s and ’80s pullover jerseys, but I definitely would NOT want them to come back … yet, anyway.[/quote]

They do look pretty much the same. Except, is #5 more of a cream color than the white in #8 or is that just the natural aging of the uniform or the photo’s bad coloring?

I agree that those two or maybe #9 would be my choice. I am a big fan of the no button baseball shirt look from the 70’s and early 80’s.

Penn State and Notre Dame though. Never gonna happen, the nameless thing is part of their Identity.

Didn’t Notre Dame once have names on their backs? I’m thinking Montana era…

Someone from hockey (I think it was Fred Shero) put it best when he said “You play for the logo on the front and not the name on the back.” Nameplates are unnecessary, especially in baseball where players are isolated on the field and in the batting order, and in baseball and hockey where there are only a few players on the court/ice at any given time.

joe|
November 30, 2006 at 2:57 pm |

[quote comment=”25670″]
im a relatively new UniWatch ™ reader, and have not seen this addressed in any of the archives or on the FAQ so i have to ask…
what friggin colour are the Cowboy’s pants. Are the silver, do they have some blue in them? Have they always been this way? They look like theyre made of dolphin skin.[/quote]

Actually…the home pants are made from baby seal skin. Jerry Jones clubs them himself, and Big Tuna and The Playmaker (TM) skin them. Jerry Jones then drinks their blood.

This is what Dan Snyder told me anyway.

Frank Mercogliano|
November 30, 2006 at 2:58 pm |

So am I a dork for having like 16 of these right so far? Great idea on the quiz….love it.

Frank

MetsFan AZ|
November 30, 2006 at 3:02 pm |

[quote comment=”25762″]Penn State and Notre Dame though. Never gonna happen, the nameless thing is part of their Identity.

Didn’t Notre Dame once have names on their backs? I’m thinking Montana era…

Someone from hockey (I think it was Fred Shero) put it best when he said “You play for the logo on the front and not the name on the back.” Nameplates are unnecessary, especially in baseball where players are isolated on the field and in the batting order, and in baseball and hockey where there are only a few players on the court/ice at any given time.[/quote]
Lou Holtz let them put their names on their jerseys for the 1988 Cotton Bowl
I’m pretty sure they lost that game.

Kelli|
November 30, 2006 at 3:06 pm |

[quote comment=”25751″]This isn’t Uni realated but since you all are my people, I feel like sharing it with you.

I used to like Albert Pujols, but after he said Glavine sucked after he pitched a gem and now this whining like a little b*tch I really feel like routing against him.[/quote]

I feel your pain. As a fantasy owner, I love Pujols. As a lifetime Astros fan, even love this beautiful jersey, I hate everything in St. Louis. Howard outperformed Pujols this year. Simple. Ultimately, even though the Cards won the Series, Howard meant more to his team over all. And to me, that’s what the MVP is all about.

MetsFan AZ|
November 30, 2006 at 3:06 pm |

[quote comment=”25763″][quote comment=”25670″]
im a relatively new UniWatch ™ reader, and have not seen this addressed in any of the archives or on the FAQ so i have to ask…
what friggin colour are the Cowboy’s pants. Are the silver, do they have some blue in them? Have they always been this way? They look like theyre made of dolphin skin.[/quote]

Actually…the home pants are made from baby seal skin. Jerry Jones clubs them himself, and Big Tuna and The Playmaker (TM) skin them. Jerry Jones then drinks their blood.

This is what Dan Snyder told me anyway.[/quote]
I heard that Dan Snyder aka “The Devil” makes the ‘skins pants out of real live (now dead) native americans.

Chad G|
November 30, 2006 at 3:07 pm |

[quote comment=”25755″]
I don’t think that by adding names to classic uniforms like USC and Navy it would make them look trashy or modern by any means. There are plenty of teams that have nameplates and still retain a classic look (ie. much of the NFL). Teams using the same number twice, however, does present a problem. I would still rather see two USC players wearing number 23 rather than have teams try to find a way to differentiate between the two. Imagine Musberger’s call “Number 23a Chauncy Washington brings the ball across the 50…”[/quote]

I was thinking more along the lines of just giving them different numbers. Since there are no numbering rules in college football and there are less than 99 players on a roster there are enough numbers for everyone to have a different one.

[quote comment=”25765″][quote comment=”25762″]Penn State and Notre Dame though. Never gonna happen, the nameless thing is part of their Identity.

Didn’t Notre Dame once have names on their backs? I’m thinking Montana era…

Someone from hockey (I think it was Fred Shero) put it best when he said “You play for the logo on the front and not the name on the back.” Nameplates are unnecessary, especially in baseball where players are isolated on the field and in the batting order, and in baseball and hockey where there are only a few players on the court/ice at any given time.[/quote]
Lou Holtz let them put their names on their jerseys for the 1988 Cotton Bowl
I’m pretty sure they lost that game.[/quote]

Oh yeah, they lost that game 35-10. My beloved Aggies went into the game as major underdogs. I believe the spread was 14 points or so. That was such a wonderful moment. (wiping a tear from my eye)

[quote comment=”25766″][quote comment=”25751″]This isn’t Uni realated but since you all are my people, I feel like sharing it with you.

I used to like Albert Pujols, but after he said Glavine sucked after he pitched a gem and now this whining like a little b*tch I really feel like routing against him.[/quote]

I feel your pain. As a fantasy owner, I love Pujols. As a lifetime Astros fan, even love this beautiful jersey, I hate everything in St. Louis. Howard outperformed Pujols this year. Simple. Ultimately, even though the Cards won the Series, Howard meant more to his team over all. And to me, that’s what the MVP is all about.[/quote]

Another Astros fan here that hates the Cardinals and loves the early 80s Astros uniforms? I thought I was the only one here….

Timmy D|
November 30, 2006 at 3:25 pm |

Found something interesting today in an email I received from the NFL. It was a sprint ad and I do not like being on mailing lists for third parties so I clicked on the link to get taken off the list. Since it was still technically a NFL email, it sent me to their unsubscribe page on their website. The banner pic at the top caught me by surprise. It is an old silver Seattle Seahawks helmut. You would think an organization that prides itself on uniformity and discourages deviating from this would have their act straight when it came down to its website. I noticed this earlier in the year in another email where they used the old “un-menacing looking” cardinals helmut and the already stated silver helmut. This is a grave oversight that cannot stand in this world, Nikeworld or Bizarroworld. It appears to be a picture of Ricky Watters the very underrated running back Golden Domer (He had over 10k rushing yards in his career, 16th all-time). It is also weird that they would have such an old picture up. Just struck me as odd.

P.S. – I couldnt find a pic of Portis’ sweet ass fully striped sock (im pretty sure it was Portis, couldve been Sean Taylor) and I was wondering if anyone had a pic of this. Paul? Bueller? Anyone? Thanks a bunch if you do. Later. Go Bears/Hawks/Bulls/Illini

John in KY|
November 30, 2006 at 3:29 pm |

[quote comment=”25770″][quote comment=”25765″][quote comment=”25762″]Penn State and Notre Dame though. Never gonna happen, the nameless thing is part of their Identity.

Didn’t Notre Dame once have names on their backs? I’m thinking Montana era…

Someone from hockey (I think it was Fred Shero) put it best when he said “You play for the logo on the front and not the name on the back.” Nameplates are unnecessary, especially in baseball where players are isolated on the field and in the batting order, and in baseball and hockey where there are only a few players on the court/ice at any given time.[/quote]
Lou Holtz let them put their names on their jerseys for the 1988 Cotton Bowl
I’m pretty sure they lost that game.[/quote]

Oh yeah, they lost that game 35-10. My beloved Aggies went into the game as major underdogs. I believe the spread was 14 points or so. That was such a wonderful moment. (wiping a tear from my eye)[/quote]

Getting back to Notre Dame – yes, they did have names on the jerseys from the last few years of the the Ara Parsegian (sp?) era, through the Dan Devine era and the Gerry Faust era. Holtz took the names off when he took over.

For that 1988 Cotton Bowl game – I wonder if the bowl provided the jerseys and put the names on intead of of Notre Dame? Back in those days before Nike and addidas ruled with total school packages, some bowl game provided the special jerseys with logo patches, etc. You would see a team that wore Champion all year wearing a bowl game jersey with a different supplier (often that company who’s logo looked like a bell but their name escapes me).

[quote comment=”25668″]I never thought there was any controversy or doubt about it… LA and the Cubs are going back to names on the back.

Boston, NY Yankees, and the Giants are the only (I think?) remaining ones without any names.[/quote]
Out of all the teams in the MLB, the Yankees are the only ones without player names on the backs of any of their jerseys.
This is the only thing for which the Yankees deserve any respect. Although I am a fan of the Mets, I envy the Yankees’ jerseys.

Taylor|
November 30, 2006 at 3:37 pm |

[quote comment=”25728″][quote comment=”25684″]
I never realized that the home and road unis are so different, especially the shoulders (striped at home, the Cowboys star on the road). Anyone know why that is?[/quote]

Back when the Cowboys first changed from the plain royal blue and white uniforms in 1964 they only had one pair of pants (the silver-blue color or, as we called it in those less PC times “gun metal blue”), the helmets matched the pants, and the blue jerseys were the reverse of the white jersey – dark royal blue with white numbers and white stripes with thin black borders. With the new uniforms the owner decided the team would wear white at home, so the blue jerseys were rarely worn.

However, they were worn in some big games that the team lost, starting with Super Bowl V. By the end of the 1970s, they seemed to lose every big game they wore them in, including the NFC Championship game after the 1979 season. The players and fans though the blue jerseys were bad luck, so in 1981 they replaced the old dark royal jerseys with a navy blue/silver set: navy blue jersey with 2 silver stripes that had white borders and silver numbers with white borders, and matching pure silver pants with navy/white stripes. The 1981 numbers were hard to read,so they were switched in 1982 to silver numbers with a double border in blue and white. The helmet was also changed to a more silvery silver/blue shade in-between the original silver/blue and pure silver, and the helmet strips/decals were darkened to the current shade.

In 1994 they tried to introduce a modernized “double star” jersey in both white and blue, to be worn with the silver pants. These were supposed to be the teams new uniform, but they were winning in the “classic” white uniforms so these became alternate jerseys for a couple of years.

I believe the current navy jerseys started in 1996. However, the blue version of the “modern double star” was worn as alternates on Thanksgiving a couple of times in the late 1990s until the current navy/white “retro” uniforms came out.

The pants worn with the white jerseys have been altered over the years to the current silver/greenish-blue shade.[/quote]

and to think, I thought I knew a lot about jerseys!

Broker75|
November 30, 2006 at 3:38 pm |

Sorry Paul, and the rest of you all, but this ain’t uni-related by 100% what-so-ever, but I couldn’t resist, this pic is amazing. I hope it works..

would you like to at least describe to us what this amazing pic was of. It’s like you gave me an ice cream cone and snatch it away right before the first lick

DJ|
November 30, 2006 at 3:51 pm |

For that 1988 Cotton Bowl game – I wonder if the bowl provided the jerseys and put the names on intead of of Notre Dame?

No, Champion (ND’s uniform supplier at the time) put the names on. Holtz approved, citing ND’s past tradition of putting names on the jerseys for bowl games (as the jerseys would be given to the players as souvenirs). When ND got whipped by Texas A&M, Holtz resolved that names would never again appear while he was coach, and they didn’t.

would you like to at least describe to us what this amazing pic was of. It’s like you gave me an ice cream cone and snatch it away right before the first lick[/quote]
Ha Ha, alright then, but you all will think I’m an airhead, it was just a pic of a kitten that would fit in the palm of Shaq’s hand passed out in his food dish, it just looked funny that’s all, alright, start throwing the one liners around everybody, that’s ok, I can take it, I’m strong like bull, hrr.

would you like to at least describe to us what this amazing pic was of. It’s like you gave me an ice cream cone and snatch it away right before the first lick[/quote]
Ha Ha, alright then, but you all will think I’m an airhead, it was just a pic of a kitten that would fit in the palm of Shaq’s hand passed out in his food dish, it just looked funny that’s all, alright, start throwing the one liners around everybody, that’s ok, I can take it, I’m strong like bull, hrr.[/quote]
Airhead isn’t what I was thinking.

would you like to at least describe to us what this amazing pic was of. It’s like you gave me an ice cream cone and snatch it away right before the first lick[/quote]
Ha Ha, alright then, but you all will think I’m an airhead, it was just a pic of a kitten that would fit in the palm of Shaq’s hand passed out in his food dish, it just looked funny that’s all, alright, start throwing the one liners around everybody, that’s ok, I can take it, I’m strong like bull, hrr.[/quote]
Airhead isn’t what I was thinking.[/quote]

you werent thinking he was another-term-for-the-kitten-he-was-talking-about, were you?
tsk,tsk…

would you like to at least describe to us what this amazing pic was of. It’s like you gave me an ice cream cone and snatch it away right before the first lick[/quote]
Ha Ha, alright then, but you all will think I’m an airhead, it was just a pic of a kitten that would fit in the palm of Shaq’s hand passed out in his food dish, it just looked funny that’s all, alright, start throwing the one liners around everybody, that’s ok, I can take it, I’m strong like bull, hrr.[/quote]
Airhead isn’t what I was thinking.[/quote]

you werent thinking he was another-term-for-the-kitten-he-was-talking-about, were you?
tsk,tsk…[/quote]
I’m hurt… yes.

would you like to at least describe to us what this amazing pic was of. It’s like you gave me an ice cream cone and snatch it away right before the first lick[/quote]
Ha Ha, alright then, but you all will think I’m an airhead, it was just a pic of a kitten that would fit in the palm of Shaq’s hand passed out in his food dish, it just looked funny that’s all, alright, start throwing the one liners around everybody, that’s ok, I can take it, I’m strong like bull, hrr.[/quote]

Does anyone know when they started adding the MLB silhouette on the back of all game caps?

I don’t know the exact year, but I think it was about 1992 or 1993. I remember owning a Dodgers fitted hat with no MLB logo and a green underbill about that time.

[quote comment=”25790″]http://www.hartfordwhalers.org/uniform.htm

File this under outstanding. Really love the color pencil renderings of the Wahlers uniforms. Beauty.[/quote]

The article is very interesting too. Good point about the green – very few teams use it as a primary color. I like the line about how white Celtics jackets outsell green jackets 25 to 1. Off the top of my head, I can think of the Celtics, NY Jets, and Michigan State as the prominent green teams.

Other than the glaring issue of displaying any white helmets as silver, it’s not too bad.

John|
November 30, 2006 at 5:44 pm |

[quote comment=”25738″]Golden State’s “The City” uniforms definitely don’t belong on that list. They are some of the best uniforms out there. I don’t think a jersey design necessarily has to be threatening to be effective.[/quote]

Amen – “The City” jerseys are amazing. That little cable car headed up the hill with the player’s number in it is absolutely brilliant.

MGHelmets is indeed a cool site – it looks terrific and has a ton of great stuff. However, If MG is so specific as to list the Giants and Jets in New Jersey, I’m sure he (or she) will be moving the Redskins to Maryland any time now, as FedEx Field is located in Landover, not in DC.

I would vote for #5 or #8–aren’t they pretty much identical? They show you the front of one and the back of the other, but if I remember, they’re both the same design. Part of me misses the ’70s and ’80s pullover jerseys, but I definitely would NOT want them to come back … yet, anyway.[/quote]

They do look pretty much the same. Except, is #5 more of a cream color than the white in #8 or is that just the natural aging of the uniform or the photo’s bad coloring?

I agree that those two or maybe #9 would be my choice. I am a big fan of the no button baseball shirt look from the 70’s and early 80’s.

That’s aging- the uni was white. The greatest team ever, the 75-76 Big Red Machine. Saw them many many times.

P Diddy|
November 30, 2006 at 7:21 pm |

Dag nabbit Uniwatch (TM). I am supposed to be writing a metaphysics paper, but yet again you have helped me effectively waste 3 hours of my life. I still love you and I will waste even more time soon.

Ian|
November 30, 2006 at 7:28 pm |

[quote comment=”25672″]now if only the yanks would drop the white trim on their road greys……….[/quote]

Finally someone who agrees with me that the Yankees need to update their 1970’s road jerseys. Every time I suggest to someone that the Yankees need to change their road greys, I get the same response that they’re classic. No, the blue NEW YORK is classic, not the white outline and 70s piping.

If they would also enlarge the text, that would be nice.

ACC (the Brain)|
November 30, 2006 at 8:03 pm |

[quote comment=”25808″][quote comment=”25672″]now if only the yanks would drop the white trim on their road greys……….[/quote]

Finally someone who agrees with me that the Yankees need to update their 1970’s road jerseys. Every time I suggest to someone that the Yankees need to change their road greys, I get the same response that they’re classic. No, the blue NEW YORK is classic, not the white outline and 70s piping.

If they would also enlarge the text, that would be nice.[/quote]

Yes good point. What is classic these days?

“It’s a classic look” = most overrused comment

Terry Mark|
November 30, 2006 at 8:33 pm |

[quote comment=”25749″][quote comment=”25714″][quote comment=”25664″]Well, any chance of me doing any ‘real’ work today just went out the window.[/quote]

Jill,

Surely as a Purdue graduate you could whip up a computer program or build a robot to do all your real work while you concentrate on the quiz.[/quote]

I was going to say something about stereotypes and there is more to Purdue than engineering. But that would be tacky seeing as I am an engineer. At least we are one of the only teams that look good in black It could be much worse. Or where I went to grad school which not only reminds me of another hated logo but makes no sense (unless there are wolves swimming out in the Long Island Sound).[/quote]

I was just guessing that you were an engineer. I would have sounded really stupid if you were, say, a hospitality management major.

Anyway, I agree with you that Purdue looks good in black. I’m glad they didn’t allow themselves to be Nike-fied. Purdue is one of the few schools outfitted by Nike that still look classy yet modern. I thought the football team’s black pants were nice.

As far as Bob Knight, I’m ashamed to say I was once a Knight apologist. I’ve reformed now and see him as he really is, a loathesome bully and hypocrite. He demands self-control and composure from his players but is unable to exhibit it himself.

The day he passes Dean Smith will be a dark day in college basketball history in my book.

To make this a more Uni-related post, I will say that one uni tradition I’m glad Knight was responsible for retaining was no nameplates.

Doug|
November 30, 2006 at 8:42 pm |

i believe the mlb logo was added to the back of the hats in 1993, i recently bought a 1992 mariners hat with a green underbill that has no logo on the back.

Leroy|
November 30, 2006 at 8:43 pm |

the bengals pants stripe-swatch makes my head hurt

Leroy|
November 30, 2006 at 8:45 pm |

[quote comment=”25814″]i believe the mlb logo was added to the back of the hats in 1993, i recently bought a 1992 mariners hat with a green underbill that has no logo on the back.[/quote]

Doug, any hat produced as part of the Cooperstown Collection has a blank back, whether it did originally or not, just part of the way they handle that “brand”

not even close…
using the terms
“abomination/s”
and
“monstrosity/s”
i cant stand those terms anymore

C.N.|
November 30, 2006 at 9:39 pm |

[quote comment=”25690″]Someone at Fox sports heard us. 4 flippin’ days after the fact they have photos to go with their 10 worst list. Hacks…[/quote]

Again… there were already pictures there. They weren’t linked in the article like Paul does, but they were there the second the article was posted.

Adam in Chicago|
November 30, 2006 at 9:41 pm |

Gotta love Chad Johnson’s all-orange chinstrap.

C.N.|
November 30, 2006 at 9:50 pm |

[quote comment=”25748″][quote comment=”25745″][quote comment=”25735″]On the topic of names/no names on the back of jerseys, one team comes to mind: USC. Even though I follow college football pretty consistently, I find it tough to watch a USC game and always trying to attach a name to a number, it kinda takes away from enjoying the game. Living in an east coast city the Trojans aren’t all familiar to me and name plates would help. It is much easier for even a casual fan to identify baseball players without the aid of nameplates but in football the task gets much more difficult, in my opinion anyways.[/quote]

I currently live in LA, but was watching the USC-ND game from New York (Thats where I’m from originally). USC starting tailback is 23 (chauncey Washington). However they have another 23 (something Joseph) that returns kickoffs. It gets very confusing. Bob Davie the announcer even called the Joseph guy washington once. Musberger knew the difference though. I kinda like the teams with the tradition of having no name on the jersey to keep it that way, however the practice of giving the same number to 2 different players should be stopped. Thats the real problem.[/quote]

I’d be interested to see a team with a traditional uniform like USC or Navy add names to the back but not change anything else. Would fans get used to this? Would someone actually complain? I mean from the front you can’t even tell if there are names on the back.[/quote]

Navy already has names on the back. Not sure when they started but I know it wasn’t an incredibly recent development.

well, i forgot to title the post. SI.com, ‘best dressed teams.'[/quote]

A lot of these lists have been lame lately, but I won’t disagree with this one, since they put my boys at #3 …

Adam in Chicago|
November 30, 2006 at 10:33 pm |

Is it just me, or is the space between the third and fourth stripe on the Bengals’ helmet oddly wide?

Jeff I|
November 30, 2006 at 10:48 pm |

The Boston Bruins have started a new trend where their bench players wear “rally cap” style helmets a.k.a backwards.

Usually it’s just the guys who don’t shoot while the 3 guys take their chances, and once they get back to the bench they flip their lids.

However, tonight the shootout went 7-8 rounds and the Bruins had to use more players thane xpected obviously. The rally helmets caused a delay for Petr Tenkrat and Phil Kessel, because as their helmets were reversed, their hot/sweaty hair fogged up their visors and they needed to be wiped down so the shooters could see.

Boilermaker|
November 30, 2006 at 10:58 pm |

[quote comment=”25812″][quote comment=”25749″][quote comment=”25714″][quote comment=”25664″]Well, any chance of me doing any ‘real’ work today just went out the window.[/quote]

Jill,

Surely as a Purdue graduate you could whip up a computer program or build a robot to do all your real work while you concentrate on the quiz.[/quote]

I was going to say something about stereotypes and there is more to Purdue than engineering. But that would be tacky seeing as I am an engineer. At least we are one of the only teams that look good in black It could be much worse. Or where I went to grad school which not only reminds me of another hated logo but makes no sense (unless there are wolves swimming out in the Long Island Sound).[/quote]

I was just guessing that you were an engineer. I would have sounded really stupid if you were, say, a hospitality management major.

Anyway, I agree with you that Purdue looks good in black. I’m glad they didn’t allow themselves to be Nike-fied. Purdue is one of the few schools outfitted by Nike that still look classy yet modern. I thought the football team’s black pants were nice.

As far as Bob Knight, I’m ashamed to say I was once a Knight apologist. I’ve reformed now and see him as he really is, a loathesome bully and hypocrite. He demands self-control and composure from his players but is unable to exhibit it himself.

The day he passes Dean Smith will be a dark day in college basketball history in my book.

To make this a more Uni-related post, I will say that one uni tradition I’m glad Knight was responsible for retaining was no nameplates.[/quote]
I love purdues basketball jerseys.Vs. VirginiaVs. Depaul

[quote comment=”25831″]The Boston Bruins have started a new trend where their bench players wear “rally cap” style helmets a.k.a backwards.

Usually it’s just the guys who don’t shoot while the 3 guys take their chances, and once they get back to the bench they flip their lids.

However, tonight the shootout went 7-8 rounds and the Bruins had to use more players thane xpected obviously. The rally helmets caused a delay for Petr Tenkrat and Phil Kessel, because as their helmets were reversed, their hot/sweaty hair fogged up their visors and they needed to be wiped down so the shooters could see.[/quote]
Here are the Bruins rocking the backwards helmet